AIBU to think a 10% inheritance levy for social care is fairer?

Yes it’s just a question of vocabulary. They call it social care but if you were incapacitated in hospital all of those things would be covered by the NHS

I think care would be covered but probably not the food and board element( which is kind of fair) . You have to hope that wouldn’t mean homes hiking up their prices accordingly.

She lives hand to mouth as it is. No kids to pass it on to.
Not everyone is eligible for a mortgage.

Brilliant idea. I just hope it goes through and doesn’t take forever. 10 percent on all inheritance is fair I think

And @Owninterpreter I’m not sure you read my post above.

I have no problem paying my taxes, I’ve paid tax my whole working life and will continue to contribute to society in which ever way I can.

My view is very basic, something has to change as the current system isn’t working. We can’t expect to have services that are not funded, the money has to come from somewhere. Again if you read above, I am against those services being privatised and sucking tax payer money out of the system.

We have had to accept that much of our inheritance has been spent on care home fees, (£6,500 per month) but at least this gave choices of care, at home and then choice of a nursing home.

But by ‘medical’ is usually meant something that needs a doctor or a qualified nurse to do it.

I’m an early boomer, 80. Unlike nowadays, we didn’t have information at our fingertips when we were young, so we thought paying income tax at over 30% was normal! It was only reduced from 35% in 1979 when many of us were struggling to hang on to our homes with mortgage interest rates at 17%.

Perhaps higher rates of income tax along with the different age demographics, and fewer people in general is why state funded care was the norm for all but the really affluent. People are now expected to work longer, but our generation worked from 15/16 in full time jobs. Lots of swings and roundabouts.

We’re not affected by IHT, we’d happily contribute 10%.

But at the present time, if you haven’t bought a house and lived in social housing all your life, you get your social care for free.

Also, if you get cancer, you get all your treatment for free and if you go into a hospice, it’s also free.

However, if you worked hard, bought your modest house and paid into a good pension and were hoping you could pass some of that onto your children/ grandchildren, but then you develop alzeimers and need full time care for 10 years (younger patients can live for quite a number of years with dementia), you have to use your savings and then your house to self fund.

It’s not a fair system now. The system Andy Burham is proposing seems much fairer. It’s just like national insurance - some people will need to take far more out of the system than they put in whereas others pay for years and never really need to use it.

Quoting my own post is a bit main character I know, but:

The principle is pooling risk, and actually, populationally speaking, relatively few people need residential care, and fewer still more expensive nursing care. If they do, it’s on average for a few years only, I think life expectancy in nursing homes is c. 18 months only.
So it’s like NHS really, we all pay NICs and taxes but 1/3 of us only need costly cancer care, for example. But we’re happy to pay the tax as the direct costs to us as cancer patients if we had to pay out of pocket would be devastating

This idea that people don't need to pay for the care they need is odd.

But the issue is that a lot of people don't pay for the care they need even if they are very well off - its only the ones unlucky enough to get eg dementia and need "social" care that have to pay. A multi millionaire with cancer does not have to pay for the social elements of their care - and for a lot of cancer patients that is what their residential or domicilliary care is. If everyone paid for their care then your position would make sense (although it isn't clear what happens to those who can't afford it). But when (as now) only a small proportion have to pay depending not on their care needs or even their finances but just on what illness they have contracted, it isn't fair. At least charging everyone 10% means that the burden is spread over the social contract in the same way as other care is funded.

I think it’s a great idea honestly. It’s fair and stops people feeling badly done to and stressing about property and hit

Fairer to whom? People who want money they haven't earned to be given to them?

If you only pay 35,000 so you can keep the rest that's about 6 months' worth of care? How is the rest funded? Are you suggesting everyone pays quite a lot more throughout our lives in levies to find the end of life care we'll need - even those people who will receive no inheritance at all?

This idea that people don't need to pay for the care they need is odd.

If you are self funding (if you have any pension/ assets/ savings) you will pay fees of around £2 to £3k per week. You are allowed only a few £ of your own money for toiletries, treats and so on. When you get down to £23k savings you will be entitled to some state funded support. Unless the care home is deemed too expensive in which case you will be moved to a cheaper home or your family will be asked to top up. Your pension and interest on savings will still be used for fees. If an adult over 60 is living in your property, a charge is placed on the property and it will be sold when the other adult dies or needs residential care.
If you are self funding, your fees will be substantially subsidising a state funded resident. You will still be paying income tax on your private/ work related pension.
Carers visiting you at home also need to be self funded and this is means tested based on pensions and savings. Self funders keep the care system going.

I agree with this.

Baby Boomers did so well out of this aspect of the Social Contract as a bulge generation. They only had to fund a much smaller older generation and had lots of working age people to share this burden with. Now we have fewer working aged people and more old people. The burden now is much heavier.

The frustrating thing is that we all knew that this demographic change was coming well before now. Baby Boomers should have been paying more when it became apparent that they were a bulge generation. The government didn't ask them to do this as they knew it would be unpopular. We now have a massive bill and nobody that wants to pay it.

The 10% levy makes absolute sense. It could have been avoided if people had paid more during their working lives but they didn't and that boat has sailed now.

The issue with the idea of individuals responsibility is, yes if i have 350k, why should the state pay for me. It makes sense and it is what happens now.

But the current system is the state will pay for me if I dont have 350k and whilst there is the concept of deprivation of assets etc, there's nothing really stopping someone running fancier cars, having nicer clothes and going on fancier holidays, eating out a more, and choosing easier jobs for 40 years. Small lifestyle differences accumulate. So Mr Frugal pays for more care than Mr Frivolous. And furthermore Mr Frugal is paying an enhanced rate out of his 350k to subsise Mr frivolous room in the same home- so why cant he at the very least least share that bit with others so his own fee reflects just his own care. Its very hard to stop people spending money they earned in case they might need care, without also harming people who dont earn much.

We also have a very fine line between whats social care and whats medical care which we seem happy to socialise the risk for.

And @XenoBitch - I think your friend ought to be obliged to take out a mortgage against the home asset to pay the charge. If it was a 10% of value, that would be small loan to value, a good rate would be accessible and if on a low income, that mortgage could run over 10 or 15 years. Or they do a lifetime equity release for it.

Otherwise, if it’s just a charge put against the house, that house could pass to that friends children, and children children and so on and never actually sold, the charge is never paid. That money is needed to payback now, the care already received.

But if you've got £350k, why would the state pay for you?

I think it’s a fair system being proposed, and I think it’s fair also at 15% and maybe 20%, but I don’t know if that’s then hitting the tipping point where wealthier than me others won’t agree? And plan to avoid.

The principle though is pooling risk, and actually, populationally speaking, relatively few people need residential care, and fewer still more expensive nursing care. If they do, it’s on average for a few years only, I think life expectancy in nursing homes is c. 18 months only.

So it’s like NHS really, we all pay NICs and taxes but 1/3 of us only need costly cancer care, for example. But we’re happy to pay the tax as the direct costs to us as cancer patients if we had to pay out of pocket would be devastating for some (suggest read Lionel Shrivers So Much For All That for an example).

I do suspect as an aging society, the costs could increase as we live longer, and people may more readily and earlier seek out residential care as it’s now cheaper and ‘already paid for’. Also, as healthcare outcome improvements for younger adults needing lifelong care continues its growth (this is the fastest growth sector, costing most of ASC budgets) expectations and costs will rise too. We probably also need to pay more to improve the quality of social care. Having said all this- life expectancy is now flatlining and future generations are smaller- I think we have a population bulge now/soon, but that passes and then care demand will fall as population decreases.

I think this system needs to consider the inequality between young adults care (generally better quality, more £££ goes on it) and old adults care AND residential vs domiciliary care, which currently doesn’t take into account assets like the 1.5m£ house someone getting care is living in, if their cash falls to less than £13k ish, all their care in home is free. Tech means the future model of care and support will be taking place more in people’s homes and so this sector really needs close scrutiny.

We have needed this reform for a long time.

I think Burnham should just get on with it and bring it forward, 23 reviews are enough and the Gvt has a big enough majority now.

But I think he will instead head into the next GE with it as a proposal and I worry this opportunity will be lost.

I own my home as a joint tenant with my partner of over 40 years . I look after my disabled son and we have paid to have adaptations to the house .It would be a disaster if one of us had to sell if the other one died.Also what would happen to a jointly owned car etc.

It should also be extended to ALL forms of income, not just wages. Either that or scrap it and increase the rate of income tax instead. Far too few people paying NIC which is just another tax.

I think they'd put a legal charge on the house so that the IHT cost would be recovered out of future sale proceeds.. They already do that with care costs when appropriate.

I think everybody should pay NI right up until they die. At present you stop paying NI when you stop working, I believe. It used to be when you reached state pension age. This would raise an incredible Amount of money I would have thought.